There Will Be Blood - a film by Paul Thomas Anderson

I think you just summed up my feelings better then I could. There was so much to like about the flick... but most of the stuff at the mansion had me scratching my head... not in confusion... just... "why?"

The movie definitely gets in you though... I've had trouble NOT thinking about it.
r.e. the Eli fight with his dad talking about Paul... for me that didn't relieve the feeling that they were the same person... I felt like it almost supported the idea, because Eli was seemingly out of character through that whole part... and then again at the end Plainview forces Eli to reveal a hidden side.

I'm sure that most people didn't see it this way... so I wouldn't call it a bad choice... but it just didn't work for me. If they were twins I think there needed to be something more establishing that fact... not because it's a hard idea to comprehend, but because of the thematic thread of "revelations"... I didn't think it would be a stretch for Eli and Paul to be the same person... and I still think it makes for a better story... because Plainview's continuous hatred for Eli is so oddly over the top IMO. The initial conversation about buying the property shows knowledge of the property... regarding it's oil... and Eli already sounds exactly like his brother Paul at that time. Both Paul and Eli had the same despondent yet professional attitude towards Plainview and how much $$$ they could get out of him...
 
c.g._eads said:
The film itself: SPOILERS ------ The first hour of this film is f'ing brilliant. It's brilliant. I only wish that the rest of the movie would've continued this way. I literally had no idea what was going to happen from second to second. The middle of the movie was very good. I was totally into it - not as much as the first hour, but I was into it. But that last 20 minutes... WOW. PTA really blew it. Because the rest of the film was so good, I feel like people are giving him the benefit of the doubt (we think: "I don't really like the ending as much as the other stuff. but since it's PTA, it must be my fault that I don't get it. Not his. Therefore it must be good"). Those last two scenes, I kept thinking, "Is this an actors showcase or the end to the movie I was just watching?" We all know DDLewis can act. Why are we given two scenes that the movie didn't need at all where we just basically watch him go wild, completely unrestrained, to see that?? The scenes were totally unnecessary. The movie would've been fine without them. I felt like PTA didn't know how to end his movie. For all of his great choices earlier in the film, and the way he let the film tell the story - the end seems completely showy. Two scenes. Both in one location each. Both very long. These are the kinds of things directors do to prove they're great directors. They want to say, "Look what I'm going to do. I'm going to put two people in a room for ten minutes with nothing but their dialogue and I'm going to make you love it." His need to show off as a director ruined an otherwise great film. I mean anybody here can say to Daniel Day Lewis, "For this entire scene, do whatever the hell you want." That's not hard.

So anyway, that's how I feel about this movie.
Click to expand...

I COMPLETELY disagree about the ending. The way the story is resolved is inevitable. The film is an examination of a sociopath, Daniel Plainview, and those final scenes are the culmination of his need to extinguish any last vestige of empathy or humanity from his soul. He can't just defeat his enemies, he has to humiliate them, annihilate them, and he won't be satisfied until he does, which is why the final line of the film "I'm finished", is note perfect.
 
So we should assume that his "son" is going to fail? The son is proclaimed a competitor... and the son crossed him once already (Daniel could have been killed by that little stunt... had it not been for the stranger)... which is why he was ready to abandon him (son) in the first place... and on that subject, why the flashes of tender moments with the son?
 
MattinSTL said:
So we should assume that his "son" is going to fail? The son is proclaimed a competitor... and the son crossed him once already (Daniel could have been killed by that little stunt... had it not been for the stranger)... which is why he was ready to abandon him (son) in the first place... and on that subject, why the flashes of tender moments with the son?
Click to expand...

That's one of the major conflicts within him, the destructive part of him that doesn't want to care about anyone but himself, and the part that cares for his adopted son. The film ends when the destructive half wins, when he pushes away the only person who ever loved him, and when he kills the only person left who ever "defeated" him. Another conflict along the same thematic lines is when he lets his "brother" get close to him, and we know how that turned out.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your insights Bututta... I hope you didn't take my posts as a challenge against the film as a work of art. When a movie gets in me I come straight here to read the opinions of all the DVXuser members, because I respect this community. We have a lot of really sharp people around here.

My overall rating of the film is pretty much the same, but I appreciate your take on it throughout this thread.
 
I guess thematically, you make a good point. There is also that element of religion vs. non-religion that is dealt with in that final scene. And that came to a conclusion. So I'm not saying that nothing is being acheived here (if I did, I'll retract a little).

However, there is no arguing that the last two scenes felt abrupt and against the flow of the rest of the film (my guess is you'd probably argue that that's the point). Those scenes would've been fine for me, had they been wrapped inside a longer "third act" that stayed within the flow of how he told the rest of the story. But the way they were presented felt totally off to me. Just my opinion though
 
I still agree on that point. The children jumped off that platform and into marriage... 16 years later... then in less then 10 minutes the flick was over. I think "abrupt" is a reasonable adjective. We jumped ahead 16 years and everything, down to the setting... changed... it almost felt like a teaser for a sequel... instead of an ending to the long epic leading up to it.
 
I don't have much to add to this thread - just wanted to say that I just saw this film yesterday and it really blew me away.
What the hell happened to PTA? I mean, I've liked his other films, and it's always been obvious he had talent -
but this was just in completely another league.

The style with which he presented this story reminded me of Kubrick's earlier work - but not in a simple derivative way... he made it his own, but it had that restraint and that kind of command to it. From someone who truly sees Kubrick as the master of film language...that's just about the highest compliment I think I've ever paid another filmmaker.

Maybe I just drank the kool-aid, but this film was simply amazing.

Yes it was long, yes it was slow in its pacing, but personally I enjoyed every moment of it and appreciated the deliberate pace that let me really take in each beat. I realize it may not be for everyone - I can see how someone can find it 'boring' - but for me, it's easily one of the best films I've seen in years.

Is it perfect? Of course not.
But what film is?

(waiting patiently for hijacking replies to a rhetorical question)
 
So Luis, which do you like more: There Will be Blood or No Country for Old Men?

I remember you really enjoyed the latter as well.
 
Well - apples and oranges, I think, in many ways. Both are fantastic - and I'm planning on going back to see both in the theater again before they're gone.

That said, 'There will be blood' has an epic scale going for it that 'No country' doesn't. That doesn't make it better or worse - but it does make it 'epic.' And I think in 50 years time people will be mentioning it in the same sentence as other epic films we look back on today from the past 50 years. Basically, I think it's place in cinematic history is pretty much locked - but I'm not certain about how time will treat 'No Country.'

But personally I think they're both incredible films, so it's not so easy to pick one over the other (and there is really no reason to).
 
Luis Caffesse said:
Well - apples and oranges, I think, in many ways. Both are fantastic - and I'm planning on going back to see both in the theater again before they're gone.

That said, 'There will be blood' has an epic scale going for it that 'No country' doesn't. That doesn't make it better or worse - but it does make it 'epic.' And I think in 50 years time people will be mentioning it in the same sentence as other epic films we look back on today from the past 50 years. Basically, I think it's place in cinematic history is pretty much locked - but I'm not certain about how time will treat 'No Country.'

But personally I think they're both incredible films, so it's not so easy to pick one over the other (and there is really no reason to).
Click to expand...

The are both very different types of movies at their core. No Country For Old Men is a plot driven movie, while There Will Be Blood is more of a psychological portrait, or as Scorsese has said about some of his films, "it has a story but no plot". I think this throws some people, as the majority of moviegoers expect a plot of some kind, so when they don't get one, they think the film is slow and boring. They are expecting things to happen that don't, some plot element to show up and keep the story moving. Instead, we're shown aspects of a character or characters life that adds up to a psychological picture. There Will Be Blood is Raging Bull, No Country For Old Men is The Departed. What you get more of in a picture like There Will Be Blood is character depth, but at the expense of narrative drive. What you get more of in a film like No Country For Old Men is story momentum and suspense, but at the expense of depth, although one of No Country's achievements is that it packs in more detail of character than most thrillers. However, one of No Country's flaws is that because they are playing by the rules of plot driven films, people feel cheated by the abrupt ending. Personally, I find There Will Be Blood to be a richer and more rewarding picture, but they are both excellent examples of their genres.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
The are both very different types of movies at their core. No Country For Old Men is a plot driven movie, while There Will Be Blood is more of a psychological portrait, or as Scorsese has said about some of his films, "it has a story but no plot". I think this throws some people, as the majority of moviegoers expect a plot of some kind, so when they don't get one, they think the film is slow and boring. They are expecting things to happen that don't, some plot element to show up and keep the story moving. Instead, we're shown aspects of a character or characters life that adds up to a psychological picture. There Will Be Blood is Raging Bull, No Country For Old Men is The Departed. What you get more of in a picture like There Will Be Blood is character depth, but at the expense of narrative drive. What you get more of in a film like No Country For Old Men is story momentum and suspense, but at the expense of depth, although one of No Country's achievements is that it packs in more detail of character than most thrillers. However, one of No Country's flaws is that because they are playing by the rules of plot driven films, people feel cheated by the abrupt ending. Personally, I find There Will Be Blood to be a richer and more rewarding picture, but they are both excellent examples of their genres.
Click to expand...

agreed
 
Batutta has got to be my favorite person on the Film Discussion boards.

Unfortunately a whole lot of people are going to have to compare the apple to the orange and decide which is better. Everyone in the academy will vote on Best Picture and these two are both contenders.
 
TheMacB said:
Batutta has got to be my favorite person on the Film Discussion boards.

Unfortunately a whole lot of people are going to have to compare the apple to the orange and decide which is better. Everyone in the academy will vote on Best Picture and these two are both contenders.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I think it will be No Country For Old Men, although I wouldn't be surprised if there's an Atonement upset. A lot of older voters might be put off by the grimness of the other films and go for the romance. Titanic did win over L.A. Confidential.
 
Formula for Oscar "Epic" feel.

a) Write a story that spans ~30 years. the more the better.

b) Don't worry about continuity in story. Dramatic huge story gap is ok (see time span on (a) ).

c) Patch the lack of strong storyline, with something personal, like sex, politics, war & religion. Make sure to hire good cinematographer to compensate the erratic storyline.

d) Get a brilliant new face to act as supporting role and get a seasoned face as main role.

e) Promote self as Indie and premiere in film festivals instead of wide theatrical release.

f) Limited release theatrically in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top